Jump to content

God and the Big Bang


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

...how wide your driveway is by reciting a poem.

As much as its embarrassing, I’m guilty of something very simillar. It involved me and my friend in our late teens (who is an architect now) and some controlled substance. The results are still apparent to this day (his Dads house) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is getting ridiculous, look, if God wanted publicity it would do some impossible shit that can be verified and tested; it doesn't so it can't. I think it's about time you stop invading multiple t

Hmmm... based on your knowledge how high would you put the probability that minimum one advanced AI exist longer than 10 million years in this minimum 13.8 billion lightyear big system? Now that we ar

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Mixing religion with science is like trying to figure out how wide your driveway is by reciting a poem.

Two Hondas wide and one Toyota deep. It fits 2 total, but just one Jeep

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Now THAT is supportive evidence! You're probably a god. 

I could dismiss iNow from his new, unexpected, god position, within seconds, asking some "wonky" questions about quantum physics.. ;)

(but putting into consternation Nobel prize winners in physics is even more amusing..)

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

makes them outside nature.

How could anything be outside Nature (if any God could exist)? Any of them could exist without space? Space is part of Nature.

 

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How can anyone make claims about their form?

The image of God in humans mind evolves as one senses what is plausable eventually with technologically in our future.

The wonderings will never give a perfect answer so they can not be evidence.

You can not blame humans to think about it when it is in our culture (can the kid see something in tv without the intensive "promotion" of technology...)

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Science is a tool for measuring nature.

Science is a tool for Understanding Nature.

Science has tools for measuring nature.

Religion is part of Nature.

Science has no tools (yet) to measure Religion related information. i.e: religions are not (yet) science. 

I wonder if we could meet God (any form of advanced intelligence) would that not falsify basically everything in the religions while would prove only one thing, the existence of higher intelligences. Would such senario change the perception of science for the masses looking for evidence about god in religions.

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Mixing religion with science is like trying to figure out how wide your driveway is by reciting a poem.

Mixing religion with science is like to recognize that there is a informational connection between a stone age bow and the falcon heavy.

Not to mention:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Which does not really change the rate of analogy in my metaphore...

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

which makes them outside nature

Could you detail this thought?

How could I imagine something outside nature? Do you have some evidence?

50 years ago we did not see planets around distant stars. Still that did not place plausable planets outside nature.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lasse said:

How could anything be outside Nature (if any God could exist)? Any of them could exist without space? Space is part of Nature.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural
  1. 1.
    (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, zapatos said:
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural
  1. 1.
    (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Nothing can exist outside the Laws of Nature.

God may could be the laws of nature itself without any higher level of presentation but that beyond the laws of nature.... that seems impossible.

How could I call an advanced immortal conscious intelligence?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Nothing can exist outside the Laws of Nature. God may could be the laws of nature itself without any higher level of presentation but that beyond the laws of nature.... that seems impossible.

Yeah, I'm not going down the same road for 'supernatural' that you led us all down for the word 'predetermined'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lasse said:

How could anything be outside Nature (if any God could exist)?

If we describe all we observe as "nature", then god(s), beings who can't be seen/recorded/detected/interacted with in a meaningful way, are outside of that. A being that ignores natural laws is considered "super (above) natural".

12 hours ago, Lasse said:

The image of God in humans mind evolves as one senses what is plausable eventually with technologically in our future.

The wonderings will never give a perfect answer so they can not be evidence.

You can not blame humans to think about it when it is in our culture (can the kid see something in tv without the intensive "promotion" of technology...)

I don't support people making guesses about what form god(s) take and then claiming it's truth. I don't mind people practicing their faith, but I do wish they'd stop trying to make scientific-type claims of credibility. Faith is supposed to be about belief that doesn't need reason.

12 hours ago, Lasse said:

Religion is part of Nature.

The way you change definitions to suit your beliefs is pretty bad practice, but it's worse when you build your beliefs on bad assumptions like this one. Just because humans practice religion doesn't make it part of nature. It may seem "natural" to you because lots of people practice religion, but no other species does, and not all humans. And again, the focus of these religions, god(s), are unobservable by science, and therefore are unnatural, or supernatural. 

There is no evidence to support the existence of god(s). That's how science works, you look at the preponderance of evidence. And I don't know how many different ways to say it, but ALL GODS are unobservable. You can claim to observe something it's/they're responsible for, but every claim like that has a natural explanation that doesn't require god(s). Gods are supernatural, like unicorns, faeries, Santa Claus, and demons. They defy physics at will, they ignore natural limitations, and they've all chosen to be unobservable to science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lasse said:

Science is a tool for Understanding Nature.

Science has tools for measuring nature.

Religion is part of Nature.

Science has no tools (yet) to measure Religion related information. i.e: religions are not (yet) science.

i hope that science and religion don't end up together then its all going to be wonky from then on

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sci-man said:

i hope that science and religion don't end up together then its all going to be wonky from then on

You look it from the wrong point of view.

More believer more support for research and task execution.

Science has already a strong philosophy.

So easy to understand. 

It would not be easy to corrupt it, specially if there are few billion interested eyes looking for clear information.

To jump back to the original topic:

Finally I understood The God of Science, The only supernatural state possible to exist, the source code of the Universe: The state of physically Nothing: 0

Task completed. 

Final question of life answered.

Science and Religion lived happy ever after...

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, sci-man said:

i hope that science and religion don't end up together then its all going to be wonky from then on

It often ends up this way, when there is collapse of society, education, knowledge, trade. Such times are called now "Dark Ages" (because of lack of written information about what exactly happened)

Ancient knowledge has been many times lost, forgotten, and remained just shreds of knowledge unable to be read, interpreted, understood by many generations of people living after collapse.

Some day, somebody, priest of new religion, can repeat E=mc2 without even having any idea what each of these letters mean, in some temple (like this happened with YHWH)..

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Lasse said:

It would not be easy to corrupt it, specially if there are few billion interested eyes looking for clear information.

I don't share your optimistic opinion. It can be very easy. At the moment, you can't even read data from tapes which were created 30 years ago. Knowledge gathered on CD/DVD/Blu-ray, won't be available when the last CD/DVD/Blu-ray reader/writer will stop working, and new one won't replace them. There is just a few people (perhaps less than per mille of per mille of population) knowing how to make these devices, how to fix them, and how to recreate them, if the all devices would be gone..

Couple thousands years ago knowledge gathered on stones was less vulnerable for loss.

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sensei said:

don't share your optimistic opinion. It can be very easy. At the moment, you can't even read data from tapes which were created 30 years ago. Knowledge gathered on CD/DVD/Blu-ray, won't be available when the last CD/DVD/Blu-ray reader/writer will stop working, and new one won't replace them. There is just a few people (perhaps less than per mille of per mille of population) knowing how to make these devices, how to fix them, and how to recreate them, if the all devices would be gone..

Couple thousands years ago knowledge gathered on stones was less vulnerable for loss.

We need a digial reality where the storage is shared  (the cloud)

35 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Some day, somebody, priest of new religion, can repeat E=mc2 without even having any idea what each of these letters mean, in some temple (like this happened with YHWH)..

What if this equation will be his only knowledge and the only thing he can explain and know that it is for sure true.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 6:53 AM, Lasse said:

Science is a tool for Understanding Nature.

Science has tools for measuring nature.

Religion is part of Nature.

Science has no tools (yet) to measure Religion related information. i.e: religions are not (yet) science. 

One could say that religion is a part of nature. But then science can study it, but as a natural phenomenon. So religion is in fact studied, e.g. by sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, history, comparative religious studies. But none of them is concerned with the question if the religious propositions are true.

In general, religions themselves do not even have methods to decide what propositions are true. They only have traditions to fall back on. They have nothing to do with science: except that they can be an object of science. But that is true for any natural phenomenon.

Sorry, Lasse, but you are just proclaiming your world view that obviously feels good for you. It doesn't stand any rational criterion.

Edited by Eise
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Eise said:

They have nothing to do with science: except that they can be an object of science.

I agree with your post Eise except this sentence.

Religions try to have something to do with science.

They also try to understand Nature somewhere.(that's it)

Note that the Christian philosophy (and the Bible) was the social, cultural, religious guidline for ca 1600  years in Europe. 

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eise said:

They have nothing to do with science: except that they can be an object of science. But that is true for any natural phenomenon.

 

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

I agree with your post Eise except this sentence.

 

Can you give some indication that you in fact understand Eise’s post above and are capable of drawing rational conclusions from it? So far you’re just going around in circles incoherently repeating your mantra, trying to marry science with religion not accepting anything that is being layed out for you. Your other thread is closed, how many does it take? Or do you think that everybody is talking trash and you’re the only one right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Religions try to have something to do with science.

Not really.

Some religious people are scientists.

Some religious people disagree with science.

I am not aware of any religion that specifically has a connection with science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Religions try to have something to do with science.

Maybe they once did. But they failed miserably. If you want to know something about nature, you should study nature, not your old books or your tradition.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Note that the Christian philosophy (and the Bible) was the social, cultural, religious guidline for ca 1600  years in Europe. 

Yes. And its scientific content turned out to be useless. There maybe some wisdom, poetry, and nice stories in the bible, but it is definitely not a science book. So why hammering on this again and again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really.

Some religious people are scientists.

Some religious people disagree with science.

I am not aware of any religion that specifically has a connection with science.

Some example: 

Catholic:

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences seeks to pay honour to pure science, wherever it is found, to assure its freedom and to promote its research. The Academy was founded in Rome in 1603 by Federico Cesi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Islam:

It's generally accepted that there are around 750 verses in the Quran dealing with natural phenomena.

Many verses of the Qur'an ask mankind to study nature, and this has been interpreted to mean an encouragement for scientific inquiry.[2] The investigation of the truth is one of the main messages of the Qur'an.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

Buddhism: 

Buddhist teacher S.N. Goenka describes Buddhadharma as a 'pure science of mind and matter'.[22] He claims Buddhism uses precise, analytical philosophical and psychological terminology and reasoning.[citation needed] Goenka's presentation describes Buddhism not so much as belief in a body of unverifiable dogmas, but an active, impartial, objective investigation of things as they are.[citation needed]

What is generally accepted in Buddhism is that effects arise from causation. From his very first discourse onwards, the Buddha explains the reality of things in terms of cause and effect. The existence of misery and suffering in any given individual is due to the presence of causes. One way to describe the Buddhist eightfold path is a turning towards the reality of things as they are right now and understanding reality directly, although it is debated the degree to which these investigations are metaphysical or epistemological.

 

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences seeks to pay honour to pure science, wherever it is found, to assure its freedom and to promote its research. The Academy was founded in Rome in 1603 by Federico Cesi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

an example....

This is not an example of religion having specifically a connection with science. The fact that the Vatican is promoting science (or some versions of it) does not imply in any way that science/religion are or can be part of each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, koti said:

So far you’re just going around in circles incoherently repeating your mantra, trying to marry science with religion not accepting anything that is being layed out for you.

It is already married at some level you like it or not, you can go around in circles trying to deny it but that will not make your Point of view true in reality....

4 minutes ago, koti said:

This is not an example of religion having specifically a connection with science. The fact that the Vatican is promoting science (or some versions of it) does not imply in any way that science/religion are or can be part of each other.

It accept and support the work of science. But maybe I missundersand what: promote it`s research means....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

It is already married at some level you like it or not, you can go around in circles trying to deny it but that will not make your Point of view true in reality....

We established that you reinvent the meaning of words to suit your agenda so this marriage is true but only for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lasse,

It is a good trick for religions to present themselves as science. But they just aren't. And calling for doing science is not science itself.

And even if Buddhism has some empirical core, and is pretty rational, it is more like a world view (humanism), with strong philosophical components. But philosophy is not science. And I would also say that Buddhism at most has something to say about the workings of the mind, from the first person perspective. And that is also hardly science. Maybe it is wisdom. But again: also wisdom is not science.

Edited by Eise
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Some example: 

Catholic:

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences seeks to pay honour to pure science, wherever it is found, to assure its freedom and to promote its research. The Academy was founded in Rome in 1603 by Federico Cesi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Islam:

It's generally accepted that there are around 750 verses in the Quran dealing with natural phenomena.

Many verses of the Qur'an ask mankind to study nature, and this has been interpreted to mean an encouragement for scientific inquiry.[2] The investigation of the truth is one of the main messages of the Qur'an.

You are very confused. The fact that some (most?) religions accept science as a valid and worthwhile thing does not mean that religions have any connection with science.

Many politicians think that science is a valid and worthwhile thing, but few of them have any connection with science.

I think science is a valid and worthwhile thing. I have absolutely no connection with science

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.